Information identifiée comme étant archivée dans le Web à des fins de consultation, de recherche ou de tenue de documents. Elle n’a pas été modifiée ni mise à jour depuis la date de son archivage. Les pages Web qui sont archivées dans le Web ne sont pas assujetties aux normes applicables au Web du gouvernement du Canada. Conformément à la Politique de communication du gouvernement du Canada, vous pouvez la demander sous d’autres formes. Ses coordonnées figurent à la page « Contactez-nous »
Copyright is about two things under Canadian law - money and morality.
If you hold copyright in a work then you expect not only to be compensated for usage of that work, but also have the right to stop anyone from using the work inappropriately, or changing it in any way.
On the other hand, if you would like to use a copyrighted work for your own creative purposes, by sampling music, a photograph, a book etc, then you might say that changes to the law to allow you to do that , presumably for free, would be a good way to "foster innovation and creativity".
Copyright law is there to protect the rights of the original creator of a work, as it should be, not someone who uses other peoples' work in their own creations.
I think the question is academic, at best
Hotshotharry [2009-09-10 15:21] Nº du commentaire : 2398 Répondre à : 1561
If you go to wlamart and buy a toy car you are Free to do with it as you choose ! Paint it modify it etc ! Only since the digitAl era have companies Been telling us how we can listen to their music or watch their movies ! If I buy a copy ... I treat it as a physical product with is mine to do with as I choose ! Cut out movie trailers menus or whatever ! Convert it to watch on another device which I own !
robert [2009-09-10 16:13] Nº du commentaire : 2405 Répondre à : 2398
Agreed - you can do absolutely as you say - just don't try to make money from, or possibly share, your new improved version or use it in such a way that may have an affect on the original artist's or manufacturer's reputation ( putting a devil's head on an angel doll might be one example)
Sorry, but you are wrong that "only since the digital era have companies been telling us etc". Copyright has been in place since 1927, same rules, more or less, as now. Ain't nothing new, just a different scenario.
We need clearer definition of what can and can't be sampled. What constitutes a substantial innovation? What freedoms do people have when creating a work which utilizes someone else's work.
Fair use also becomes a hot topic that needs clearer definition... By allowing unlicensed fair use clauses to exist, and let content creators build off other people's work, we will foster innovation and creativity. Setting clear and strict limits on what constitutes innovation and what is plagiarism (How much was copied verbatim, how much was modified, and how much was new material) in fair use not requiring a license.
by writing these limitations in clear plain language that can be understood by 10 year old children, we would improve Canadians' understanding of the laws, so that we can innovate within the rules and guidelines of the law.
The best changes are those which protect me, the consumer. What I read appears as engineered consumerism at best and... well I'll avoid the privatized Orwellian arguments for others... as a consumer I will not purchase a device which either police or lock me into someone's business model. Protecting consumers with fair-use, open-standards, and interoperability are how you'll foster innovation and creativity because these industries, entertainment & recording industry most notably, are as disposable as the income I spend there. Which is getting scarce.
Has no one noticed amazon and kindle?
MalContent [2009-08-13 21:54] Nº du commentaire : 1648 Répondre à : 1514
"as a consumer I will not purchase a device which either police or lock me into someone's business model."
Guess you don't have a TV then... Or a telephone?
Both of those are pretty closely tied to somebody else's business model.
Any copyright change which deprives me of the chance to make a decent income as a copyright holder, or makes a mockery of the very concept of "intellectual property", only serves to discourage me and other artists from dedicating our own time and resources to creating these works in the first place.
crade [2009-08-14 00:38] Nº du commentaire : 1649 Répondre à : 1648
The rights granted to creators by our legislation are deserving of respect and consideration, but the "Intelectual Property" term itself is just a misrepresentation of these rights that the IIPA spread around as part of their capaign to spread paranoia for their own self-interest (no, they aren't in it for the creators... gasp). In my humble opinion it is highly deserving of mockery.
Anyway, there isn't going to be any "depriv[ing of a] chance to make a decent income" (unless you depend on fair dealing for your income). If the government moves an inch in a direction other than what the corrupt lobbyists tell them to I'd be more than surprised. I'm pretty sure the best we can hope for is to limit how much more unbalanced the law gets towards the big labels (and away from both creators and consumers).
arts [2009-09-04 23:00] Nº du commentaire : 2227 Répondre à : 1514
You are free to opt out of any purchase you choose. No one is forcing you to buy a Kindle. Fair "dealing" already exists in our law. I suggest you learn how to use, and do so. It's fun.
Open standards and interoperability will come if the market demands them -- so demand them by continuing to not buy things with unreasonable locks on them. We don't alter laws to force market change unless the present damage to consumers is severe. Not being able to buy (or illegally download) an e-book that exists in paper is not severe. Our laws deal with real outcomes, and the outcomes you infer are little more than inconvenient.
This is kind of long video from Duke univerity about copyright and sampling in the US and how it has expanded the industry...along with the legal side of it...keep in mind that this is in the US but should be thought about how any restrictions would impact our laws.
Great access to digital media is a great catalyst for innovation and creativity. Recently, I have registered a corporation for personal business, and for our first (zero) year, I decided to fill corporate taxes on my own. When filling out corresponding government forms, I got stuck on a particular section and turned to Google and online searches for some help. A reference came up from a book that is partially available through Google. The reference gave me an answer right away to my question and I finished the tax forms fairly easily. At the same time, I really liked other information available in this book and I added it to my Amazon shopping queue, to order in my next batch. Without access to online media, in this case through Google, I would have spent many more hours filling the forms instead of working on my business and creation of IP, and I would have never found out how useful this tax book was to my purpose.
However, I am afraid that such "easy access" scenarios will be disabled if special-interest groups get their way through this copyright reform, thereby hindering the speed of doing business.